Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh Naruka vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. And ... on 7 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72284
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2129 of 2018
Amar Singh Naruka
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Nadeem Murtaza
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 3192 of 2006 (State Vs. Jagmohan Singh (Amar Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP), Lucknow under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 3192 of 2006 as also the Charge-sheet No. 41A/2005.
3. The fact of the case is that the applicant namely Amar Singh Naruka, married the opposite party No.2 on 20.07.2001 at Aarya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow. The said marriage was solemnized on account of love and affair between the two, as the marriage was inter-caste, it was opposed by the family members and in fact immediately after the marriage, the OP No. 2 wrote a letter to Senior Inspector, Fatehganj Police Station, Vadodara saying that she had married on her own accord, however she apprehends that the father and mother of the OP No. 2 may level false allegations and thus she apprehends threats from her parents. Subsequently, it appears that there was a marital discord in between the couple which resulted into the lodging of the F.I.R. by the OP No. 2 on 16.3.2005.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that since 20th July, 2001 till the date of the lodging of the F.I.R., the opposite party No.2 was harassed for dowry. In the F.I.R., all the relatives of the applicant were implicated without there being any averment specific to each of the relative. On one hand, the F.I.R. alleges the offences against the opposite party No.2 since 2001, however the letter written by the OP No. 2 herself reveals that she married on her own accord and was apprehending opposition and harassment at the instance of her parents.
5. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the police proceeded to investigate and file a Charge-Sheet on 19.5.2005. The C.J.M. by his order dated 5.8.2005 passed an order summoning the applicant for trial under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of the summoning order reveals that there is no application of mind and is a clearly mechanical exercise of power summoning the accused on the basis of the charge-sheet.
5. The counsel for the applicant has argued that the entire proceedings pending against the applicant are an abuse of process of law. Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has very fairly assisted the Court and has argued that the Apex Court has time and again observed that there is a tendency of false implication of all the relatives of the husband. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12)
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."
The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.
25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, Geddam Jhansi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 263, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another (2025) 3 SCC 735.
7. In view of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant and the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam (supra), Geddam Jhansi and Another (supra), Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others (supra) as also the FIR, and other evidences available, at this stage does not reveal any specific allegation against the applicant before this Court. In the instant matter, the allegations against the mother-in-law and father-in-law had already been quashed, based on the same facts and circumstances.
8. The present case is a clear case of abuse of process of law inasmuch as bald allegations have been made against the applicant in a reckless manner and the summoning order has been passed without there being any application of mind at the instance of the C.J.M.
9. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Case No. Case No. 3192 of 2006 (State Vs. Jagmohan Singh (Amar Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP), Lucknow under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 3192 of 2006 as also the Charge-sheet No. 41A/2005 are quashed as against the applicant.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)
November 7, 2025
NSC
